Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 11483 Kant
Judgement Date : 22 August, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. NO.192 OF 2022 (SC-ST)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. KADRIYAPPA,
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
DEAD BY HIS LR'S.,
1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O. LATE KADEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
2. SMT. CHIKKAMUNIYAMMA
W/O. LATE KADEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
3. SRI. CHANDRAKUMAR
S/O. LATE KADEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
4. SMT. MUNILAKSHMAMMA
D/O. LATE KADEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT SURADENAPURA VILLAGE,
HESSARAGATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK,
2
BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SRI. BETTAIAH,
S/O. BETTE GOWDA,
R/AT NOS. 29 AND 30,
7TH "A" CROSS,
23RD MAIN ROAD, J.P. NAGAR,
2ND PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078.
... APPELLANTS
[BY MR. B. RAVINDRANATH, ADV., (ABSENT)]
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
3. SHRI. HEZRON JACOB
S/O. REUBE JACOB,
AGED MAJOR.
4. SMT MADHU NAIDU
W/O. SHRI. HEZRON JACOB,
AGED MAJOR,
R3 AND R4 ARE R/A NO.'C' 412,
NEELADRI MAHAL,
NANDIDURGA ROAD,
JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION,
BANGALORE - 560 046.
5. SHRI. MUNIYAPPA
S/O. LATE MINIMARAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
6. HANUMAPPA
3
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN,
AGED MAJOR,
7. SMT. GANGAMMA
W/O. LATE THIPPAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,
8. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA
W/O. LATE RAJANNA,
AGED MAJOR,
9. SHRI. MUNIKRISHNAPPA
S/O. LATE CHIKKADASAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 9 ARE
R/AT. SURADENAPURA VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI - 560 073,
BANGALORE NORTH (ADDL) TALUK.
10 . SHRI. T.S. BYLAPPA
S/O. LATE SIDDARAMAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT CHOKKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 073.
11 . SHRI. C.K. KARIYAPPA
S/O. KUSHALAPPA,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT GONIKOPPA,
DAKSHNA KODAGU,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236.
12 . SHRI. K. SITHARAM
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN,
AGED MAJOR,
NO.47/1, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
CHAMARAJPET,
BANGALORE - 560 018.
... RESPONDENTS
4
(BY MR. S.S. MAHENDRA, AGA., FOR R1 & R2.)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 21.01.2020
IN WRIT PETITION NO.44527/2013(SC ST) PASSED BY THIS
COURT AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra court appeal arises from an order
21.01.2020 passed by learned Single Judge, by which
writ petition preferred by the appellant has been
dismissed.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal
briefly stated are that land bearing Sy.No.31/17 New
Survey No.58 measuring 2 acres situate at
Sriramanahalli Village, Hessarghatta Hobli, Bangalore
North (Addl.) Taluk was granted in favour of one late
Munidasappa on 10.09.1949. The aforesaid land was
alienated under a registered sale deed dated
06.07.1967 and thereafter was re-conveyed on
22.03.1969, 31.06.1980, 31.12.1992 and
30.11.1993.
3. An application was filed after a delay of 26
years in the year 2006 before the Assistant
Commissioner under Section 5 of Karnataka
Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition
Of Transfer Of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act' for short). The Assistant
Commissioner by an order dated 01.04.2008 allowed
the application. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal
was preferred by the Deputy Commissioner, who
allowed the same by an order dated 27.09.2012. The
aforesaid order passed by the Deputy Commissioner
was challenged in a writ petition before the learned
Single Judge which has been dismissed by impugned
order 21.01.2020. In the aforesaid factual
background, this appeal has been filed.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the
appellants and have perused the record. The Supreme
Court in 'NEKKANTI RAMA LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS' 2017 SCC Online SC
1862 has held that even though no time limit is
prescribed for initiation of action under the Act, yet
the same has to be initiated within reasonable time.
5. In the instant case, the land in question was
granted on 10.09.1949. The same was alienated on
06.07.1967, 22.03.1969, 31.06.1980, 31.12.1992
and 30.11.1993. The legal representatives of the
grantee filed an application for resumption of the
same after a period of 26 years from the date when
the act came into force i.e. 01.01.1979. No
explanation has been offered for making such an
application after an inordinate delay of 26 years. The
Deputy Commissioner, therefore, has rightly held that
the legal representatives of the grantee are not entitled
to resumption of the land and the said order has been
upheld. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not
find any merit in this appeal. The same fails and is
hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE SS
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!